Science Forums 2

[gubba]

G'day Folks,

Been musing about mutations a bit lately after brushing up on genetics recently. An oft- stated axiom in evolution is the non- purposiveness ( strewth! is that english?) of natural selection, often followed by wonderful examples of nifty pieces of biological engineering such as binocular vision, flight feathers etc. etc. The descriptions of these adaptations nearly all tend to rave, in deterministic language, about how they were developed to their current level of excellence. Ring bells with anyone?

I don't know, but I reckon I wouldn't mind my sight reaching into infra-red, I certainly won't complain if I possessed a better designed spine for our bipedal existence, mind I don't get around so much anymore. My point is that, perhaps, natural selection is not so much about selecting the Fittest as culling the truely Abysmal! If we back off a bit from our species hubris and look across the fossil record, species don't tend to hang around too long no matter how marvellous many of them must have been. And ALL THE TIME THE GENES WILL BE MUTATING. Could mutation, or rates of mutation, be the largest determinant of species' viability? Why is there so much redundancy (no quite what I mean) in our genes? I'm very attracted to the idea that they serve as fall back positions in case of faulty genes etc.

Anyway all the above lets me proclaim the laid back musings of evolution, we get along as best as we can 'til the s**t hits the fan and lets hope it ain't in our lifetime. Some of us spread a bit wider, some slow a bit, some even pick up a couple of tricks, but life rolls along much the same just changed a bit, so a couple of us drop off or fall asleep. Still once everyones' got their eyes open you'd be an idiot to close your own tight shut. cheers gub.